Guest Voice: No Comments Please
Aug 2nd, 2007 | 49 responses
NOTE: The Moderate Voice runs Guest Voice posts from time to time by readers who don’t have their own websites, or people who have websites but would like to post something for TMV’s diverse and thoughtful readership. Guest Voice posts do not necessarily reflect the opinions of The Moderate Voice or its writers. This is another Guest Voice by Alex Hammer.
No Comments Please
By Alex Hammer
When I write about Ron Paul – http://themoderatevoice.com/politics/12850/guest-voice-the-ron-paul-internet-dilemma/ – I get 24 comments. When I write about our role as citizens in making a better government – http://themoderatevoice.com/politics/14243/guest-voice-life-is-heroic-but-running-for-president/ – I get zero.
Why is that?
I believe that we’re extremely focused as a species. We love to comment about what the other guy or gal is doing. We review in our minds how others have treated us, what we like in that regard and perhaps especially what we don’t. What others’ responsibilities are to us that they are or are not meeting. But one seems to have much more of a difficult time (i.e. much less of a tendency) focusing, or staying focused, on our own responsibilities in making things better.
The CNN/YouTube debate showed that citizens do like to get involved. And have fun (e.g. snowman) in that role as well. But it’s a struggle. Candidate responses in that format can still be canned, and some candidates will not it seems be inclined to subject themselves to even this level of scrutiny.
One of the major Presidential candidates has over 200 videos on YouTube! And yet too much of this Presidential 2008 election process still seems to involve largely one-sided conversations.
I wonder why we allow this?
When I ran for Governor of Maine in 2006 I published an article entitled “A Citizen’s Responsibility” – http://www.magic-city-news.com/Alex_Hammer_88/A_Citizen_s_Responsibility_55655565.shtml - (I had previously published one entitled “A Governor’s Responsibility”).
In that Maine election was one theme (not new) of whether one is being too negative by strongly focusing on the significant documented challenges of our spectacular state. In that piece I concluded:
“Many people will tell you how great Maine is. I myself say Maine is, can, will and should be great And this is true. But at another level we’ve fallen far short. And I mean that in a collective we, myself as a Mainer included. We need, I believe, to pick ourselves up, look ourselves in the mirror, and talk to ourselves in regard to what each one of us is willing and going to do to personally make things better for ourselves, for our children, for our families and for our state.
I mean that. If you agree, make a promise to yourself that you will do your part. In an ultimate and philosophical sense, our own actions are truly all we really are guaranteed of controlling in this world.
John Kennedy asked us not to ask what your country could do for us, but instead to ask what we could do for your country.
So I ask you. While you’re standing in front of this mirror, I want you to reflect on all the things that are wrong with this state. Mull it over in your mind so that you don’t miss or forget anything. And then I want you to stare into the mirror in a determined (even ferocious) glare, and say in a loud voice (or softer if there are other people around) with all the courage that you can muster:
It’s your fault?”
Any comments?
49 Responses to “Guest Voice: No Comments Please”
“I wonder why we allow this?”
Huh? I always thought this concept is widely known as the right to freedom of speech. I’m under the impression that’s it even an integral part of the US constitution. If this is so, this whole question seems to be totally useless, don’t you agree?
As for the lack of comments for your story on the ‘role of citizens in government’: I’m so sorry I have failed you! Everybody here knows that, when I’m here, I normally add my two eurocents to even the dumbest columns. It was just in a rare burst of arrogance that I decided that heaping praise on the heroic service of politicians…[deleted] …was such a lame endeavor that it shouldn’t be rewarded with feedback. You know, the general idea is: If we all play dead, maybe the jerk finally shuts up!
[Deleted link]
P.S: Joe, I guess you like that guy, and that’s why you let him post here. But I really hope that his complains about missing reponse won’t lead you to establishing yet another forum rule:
‘Registered users are bound to comment every story they read at TMV.’
Actually Gray, he is quite right. It is true that people tend to rather talk about other people and what they do right or wrong then to do something themselves. It is human nature. In a democracy, however, citizens should be active.
Note: I couldn’t access TMV for a bit so I could not run this edited comment. I’ve replaced the other one with this, whic is a bit more clear.
I’ve deleted parts of the first comment above since it clearly violates our comments policy about personal attacks on TMV writers.
Also, the link that was included accusing this person of being a “spammer” due to sending emails to a blogger who says other bloggers got them is not welcome.
FYI I get LOTS of emails from bloggers and readers all the time. They are emails asking me to join them in this or that or to run posts or Guest Voice posts. I don’t consider them spams and I also email many bloggers all the time. If someone has something personal to say or ask me, then email me and please keep it out of comments. Please re-read our comment policy below. I saw that link a long time ago because I do a Google search on anyone who submits to TMV. If I considered all repeated emails from readers spams, we wouldn’t run any Guest Voice posts and I’d have no interaction with readers — some of whom not only tipped us to stories but one became a co-blogger.
Holly used to email me literally throughout the day about my many typos and send me a ton of news links and other emails. I finally invited her to coblog.
Also: the point he makes is one many bloggers have asked — why some posts get a lot of comments and others don’t. People who write on TMV are surprised by this all the time. The above posts asks in public what many ask privately.
Well, sry, Joe, but authors complaining about a lack of enthusiasm from their potential readers regularly rub me the wrong way (plus, I had two coffee but no breakfast, thus the acid).
Note: NEVER BLAME THE CUSTOMER!
So, I simply asked myself: Who is that guy? And the link you (rightfully, ok) critizised was one of the first to show up in google. Looking for further information, I now have my prejudice made up
This quote really impressed me:
“I learned in this campaign that running for Governor is a little more difficult than I thought it would be.”
http://www.magic-city-news.com/Alex_Hammer_88/Thank_You_69846984.shtml
Of course I also ckecked the official results of the Maine 2006 election here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maine_gubernatorial_election,_2006
) only collected 0,6%. I guess the voters are to be blamed.
While I think it’s a nice suprise that the Green candidate almost got 10% of the votes, I think it’s somewhat sad that the guy from the US Vets association ( ‘Vets’ like Veterans, not Veterinerians, C!
Oh, finally I stumbled across this rumour:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maine_gubernatorial_election,_2006
“Hammer is thinking about starting a wiki in an Independent run for President for 2008.”
Well, all the best for this bold try, Mr. Hammer! But pls take the problematic outcome of Nader’s campaign into account, ok?
While our fellow TMVers check the informations at wikia.com , they might also inform themselves about the candidate by looking at hislist of issues here:
http://hammer2006.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page
Well, some may find the clarity and simplicity of Mr. Hammer message refreshing. I only can say that he sure has a very, uh, independent mind.
Hi Mike, long time, no see!
“In a democracy, however, citizens should be active.”
Yeah, and in an ideal world, citizen would care more for each other than for themselves. But they don’t (most of them, ok), and, like you say, it’s human nature. If it would be otherwise, even communism would work.
No, seriously, if citizen aren’t active, than the ‘politicians’ are the first to be blamed for not being able to get the masses moving. Simply citing JFK is not enough to do the trick. It’s not only the message, but also the messenger who has to convince the people to actively gather behind a program or a candidate. The reason behind that is, honestly, the single individual can’t do fundamental changes. You need a broad movement of people sharing the same goal and ideals. To accomplish this, the culminating point is a campaign, consisting of a convincing leader and competent supporters. Without this, most citizen won’t actively engage, because it would be a waste of time and energy. This is the insight I am missing here.
These comments got me thinking, which I think is always a good thing, and I guess the intent of seeking comments.
What is interesting (to me) is that there are a lot of smart people in this country, and in this world, with so many divergent points of view.
I consider that a good thing.
I also don’t believe in blaming the customer, so to speak. But like many I am dissastisfied with the level (type) of representation in this country. I do not believe that complaining is enough, and in fact, being a little bold, I feel that “anyone who is not part of the solution may in fact be part of the problem”. By that I just mean that our actions are going to make the world a better place. Words are actions too. That’s one of the reasons that I write.
Now that the election is over and my campaign website has been down, it changes a lot the search results that come up. I am a little bit of an assertive person which occasionally rubs a few the wrong way, but highly regarded (e.g. Facebook friends include Rupert Murdoch, Steve Case, Mark Cuban, Marc Benioff, Howard Dean, Arianna Huffington and many other elite names). In the 2006 race for Governor I had 30 Op-Ed articles published across the major newspapers of Maine, dozens of top radio and TV interviews and a couple of nice endorsments but I didn’t come close to winning. I also was in a major traffic accident one month after announcing my candidacy (29 days in the hospital, ten months on crutches) which really derailed my chances.
I think The Moderate Voice is a great site, and I enjoy writing here.
Thank you.
Gray,
I thought your first comment was awful and needlessly inflammatory, but comment #5 is pretty insightful and I agree with most of it. The tone that you are describing (and now, critiquing instead of flaming) reminds me a bit of Al Gore’s tenor which I find extremely grating ( I agree with one book reviewer who called him a “moral scold”.)
If someone chooses to enter public service because he/she feels that he/she has leadership skills, then please sir or ma’am: display those skills. You will succeed or fail based on the merits of those skills. That it is hard to mobilize, energize, and ignite passions in groups of people is a given. There’s an inertia that you are called to overcome, the inertia of the everyday life of the men and women who work for a living and struggle to raise their children. This is your challenge, take it or leave it. Please don’t complain that it is the fault of those people for making your job harder. People are rarely motivated by guilt (though that seems to be succeeding lately in some circles like the environmental movement- I doubt it will be sustainable though).
This post starts with an observation about comments, but being an active citizen and commenting on blogs are not really the same thing, are they?
I’d guess there imay be a degree of overlap, but it’s hard to know how that works out;i Certainly, people oftencomment to advocate, but often they do so just to express an immediate reaction, i.e. to vent. It requires a different mindset and a higher degree of commitment to be an active citizen in other ways: to contact Congresspeople, to participate in community organizations, etc.
As blog posts that are contemplative or inspirational in some sense,are different from news stories or op-eds on current events, the reaseons for commenting (or not) are different also. Sometimes, it may be the case that there is simply nothing to add or with which to argue, it’s just something to think about. On occasion, a topic may also have been covered so often, that the well of possible responses has run dry.
At any rate, we shouldn’t judge how citizens practice their citizenship on the basis of comments to blogs.
“Gray, I thought your first comment was awful and needlessly inflammatory”
I understand that many might see it this way. Sry, but again: Imho if there’s no feedback to any given story, the most probable reason is that it’s poorly written and/or about a lame topic and/or so far out that people politely refuse to add their true opinions on that. Blaming the reader in such a case is totally unconstructive, since it will only build up negative feelings towards the author.
With blaming the citizen for inaction it’s the same: If this doesn’t come from a respected authority, it will rub people the wrong way most of the time.
While Mr. Hammer’s point generally is correct, democracy would profit from more citizen actively involved, this leaves the question which action he deems to be helpful right now. Should everybody run for president? Folks, if you consider this, pls follow Mr. Hammer’s example and do this as a write in campaign, Otherwise the ballot will be so screwed up that the 2000 butterfly ballot desaster will look like a harmless anecdote in hindsight!
“People are rarely motivated by guilt”
Exactly, C! Couldn’t have said it better (I guess that’s because I’m in full ironic mode right now).
I think I overlooked something, in that my column by some might be taken as an indicator that I was saying that people have a responsibility to comment. I wouldn’t be that bold!
For one thing it is an admission that as a writer I do appreciate comments, and benefit from them. Even moreso, it is an observation that some types of articles that I have written generate lots of comments (e.g. the Ron Paul) while others gain few. If I perhaps wanted to be a “politician” and only write Ron Paul or other popular topics I could easily generate tons of comments from every story.
In line with giving the customer what they want and the customer always being right, there is, I think, some degree of truth in this. But life, if others also agree, can never truly be that easy. It takes work to get the most out of it, IMHO, and part of that is mental work.
You know, it’s interesting to me. The Bush Administration, I believe, ignored the will (continues to) of the American people in regard to Iraq. But now America (Americans) are pushing back. That’s what I mean (a good thing) and what I was also referring to re: YouTube.
I agree that we don’t have time as citizens to make every decision. That is why we have a representative government. But I don’t want politicians to be lumped togehter with lawyers, used car salesmen etc. as being on the low end of the integrity scale – no sleight to those other professions as well). That is why I am sometimes a bit hard perhaps, on both other politicians and also citizens (and myself).
It’s simplistic, and maybe naive. But I do think that we are in this (America) largely together. That’s why I’m a moderate (Independent) and value a site like the Moderate Voice.
Hahahah. Man I love the era we live in. The way you put that is hilarious (and also wholly accurate for the youth vote…did you target them enough?)
When it comes to inspiring people to action,
‘Blame the Politician’ is not an argument that works for me, not if that’s all there is to it. ‘Moral scolds’ are abdolutely necessary to make us look in the mirror and recognize our own role in why things are in the mess we complain about. Centuries of sermons in places of worship have been based on this principlel The word ‘repent’ is big on the sabath.
In fact, blaming the moral scold politicians is a perfect example of passing the citizenship buck on instead of taking personal responsibility.
Likewise, the inspirational leader is just a gas bag, unless he is inspiring the citizenry to take up worthy causes. Beware, also, of the inspirational leader who inspires you to back suicidal policies.
Basically, we need a good balance, or the perfect parent surrogate: someone to correct us and inspire us at the same time; someone who is infinitely wise and self-sacrificing for our benefit, etc. etc.
And when we find him, he’ll be working in the private secor for much better pay.
“These comments got me thinking, which I think is always a good thing, and I guess the intent of seeking comments.”
That’s a generous answer to a commenter who poured quite a lot of vitriol over you. Mr. Hammer. Seriously now, I think your way of handling dissent is impressive. Disclosure: I’m not a US voter, so you can totally ignore my opinion. It may very well be that I’m a lone voice in the wildrerness and all other readers here disagree.
You may have got a hint now at what strikes me as odd with your story: It’s not only that you seem to blame the readers for not getting comments, it’s also that you take a stance as if you are, as a former candidate for governor in Maine (and facebook friend of celebrities 8-|), an authority that has enough stature to lecture citizens on their alleged inactivity (I’ll come back to that later). Well, sry, but by looking for information about your stances in that campaign (and not finding the real beef), and also by noticing that you gathered so few votes that your results are nowhere to find, I still think that your position is a bit pomptuos. Imho the mayor of any town, no matter how small, would be better suited to demand more participation from his fellowmen than an “also running” candidate for governor. In short: Congratulations on your exemplary resolution to actively participate in the democratic provess, but imho you tried to go a bridge to far by running for governor (just my personal opinion, of course).
As for the alleged lack of active participation by the citizen: Is this so? Excuse me pls, but am I the only one who had the impression that there’s a trend towards engaging in politics by volunteering for campaigns and by being a part of the new medium. Isn’t the Blogosphere, that tries to relay informations and opinions from the people to the people, adding countless new faces and facets to the political spectrum every single day? Isn’t this exactly what you call for? And, if this is so, is it productive (or even necessary at all) to point out inactivity, or wouldn’t it be much better to give people the tools to participate in the discussion, like Joe & Co. do here? Imho lowering the hurdle that used to be in the way when citizen wanted to make their voice heard is the greatest accomplishment of the Internet, and it already has shown a very positive impact on the willingness to get involved in campaigns and programs. So, I think the train is already underway. What is needed now is not someone pointing the finger, but everybody who offers new possibilities for people to conveniently jump on.
Again, just my two eurocent. Pls don’t take my ironic rants too serious, Mr. Hammer, I really appreciate it when a politician is willing to face the critics. Wish all where so.
For what it’s worth, I think you are now touching on a different topic, Mr. Hamme: the issue of elected officials following the will of the people vs. leading them somewhere that they didn’t want to go. I think that is pretty complex and you can’t boil it down to a dichotomy between straightforward direct representation where politicians constantly ask the people what they want and implement the policies that result from questionnaires or polls nor a dictatorship where politicians do as they please without regard for their constituents’ desires.
Individuals are not always going to see the wisdom of collective decisions that benefit the group but require sacrifice from individuals. Sometimes a person in leadership needs to convince the people to go a direction that they would otherwise not take. If he/she fails to convince them, then the foundation of support for the idea will collapse eventually (eg, Iraq War).
But individuals are short sighted and like to be told what they want to hear, so difficult policies can’t be avoided simply because the masses don’t automatically support them. And even when the outcome of a policy has support, there’s still usually a cost associated with it and the people have to decide whether or not the outcome is worth the cost; this is again where true leaders are needed to persuade people of how to best allocate limited resources and to sometimes inspire them to make individual sacrifices for the benefit of the whole of society.
So it’s not ‘either-or’ in terms of politicians following the will of the people or not; it’s a matter of figuring out when to go with the flow and when to try to direct the flow (and to be skilled at the process of directing public opinion.)
And I do think that asking for feedback is helpful and important but when the elected leader is asking for that feedback it should be in terms of “let me know what problems you’d like to see addressed and then we can find ways to work on them together” which assumes that the elected official will lead this process rather than “think about the problems that you see and then remember that you have the responsibility to work toward fixing them” which leaves out the responsibility of the leader and seems to put the whole onus on the individual citizens.
“”People are rarely motivated by guiltâ€
???
Someone should tell that to religious organizations
many of whom stand on a foundation of instilling guilt.
And isn’t any ethical system based on internalizing guilt as the consequence of doing the ‘worng’ thing?
Anyway the post you wrote that got no comments was not written in a way to elicit them. I think your point was way too subtle. Or not, maybe I’m trying to read a point into it that’s not there. You can’t be subtle on the internet because everyone is so pepped up one coffee, rage, or fear of boredom. If I were a politician I’d introduce a bill to make it illegal.
But if I’m reading into your larger point on citizen participation I think you should look at it the opposite way. You’re working against thousands of years of culture and millions of years of genetics in trying to engage people. The vast majority of people feel downtrodden and helpless. A significant percentage of those that don’t spend their time scheming to make a profit off the ones that do.
JFK’s call to do service for the country did little more than make everyone feel warm and fuzzy and get wayward college students to go to Africa. A few years after that, “serving” meant something entirely different and destructive.
I confess I don’t know what your life history is, so maybe you’re not guilty of this, but with the tone you have (in the newspaper editorial) it sounds both trite and condescending because it is straight from a high school pep talk.
By trying to get to the top and then working down, you run into all the problems that CS just brought up. I don’t think all is lost, as people can be empowered and this makes them more willing to listen and think, but it has to start on a local level. To me, if you’re serious about citizen action, you need to spend the time and work on setting up organizations and ideas that are manageable but also fit into the larger picture. The civil rights marches are a good example of this, as each one by itself was an expression of localized will, but they worked in a complementary fashion and had an overall national strategy.
Of course getting people to do more than “just” march and to actively contribute ideas is a lot tougher because it is more protracted and subtle. I have some thoughts on this but I’ve rambled too long.
This is something that irritates me about Obama. He has put in the time as a community organizer and has a lot of policy goals that reflect what I’m talking about (for instance, his educational plan is not to give schools more money, but to have 10-15 districts develop and implement plans and compete for it. Then they share what’s working and not amongst each other and eventually when they get kinks ironed out, those reforms start spreading to surrounding areas and hopefully nation wide.) but he never points this out. Maybe he doesn’t think it’s important, but I think that sort of strategy is right up your alley.
Sometimes if the foundation of support for an idea or policy collapses it is because the idea was not a viable one in the first place. In the case of the Iraq War it is not the salemanship, but the policy that has failed.
Doma: I suppose I should have chosen the word “inspired” rather than “motivated” there.
Interesting that you compare it to religion though since the trend in the green movement is a lot like the dynamics of those kind of churches that preach on fire and brimstone (combinations of fearmongering and instilling a sense of personal guilt).
I don’t think that’s very helpful for religion either (instead, authentic Christianity preaches sin only in order to emphasize forgiveness and redemption). People who’ve been inspired to great things in the name of religion haven’t done so out of motivation of fear of damnation- people like that tend to seek to do the minimum necessary to avoid hell. The authentic witnesses of faith are those who see things in a positive light, to bring the light of Christ into the world through their actions.
Now people are getting into an area that I find fascinating to discuss, what leadership is, and also importantly what it isn’t. At the risk of being thought or called arrogant for citing another of my previous articles: http://www.magic-city-news.com/Alex_Hammer_88/Examples_of_Transformational_Leadership7160.shtml
I also wanted to point out what was said above about tools. I agree 100%. That is also what I try to do on my political website, http://www.hammer2006.blogspot.com (Now Politics 2.0). As others have said, it’s not enough just to identify the problems, that is only step one. One must also identify, and then be involved in, with others, solutions.
I personally think that there will likely always be problems in life, as there have always been. But hopefully within, nonetheless, higher and higher levels of achievement, prosperity and overall success.
IMO.
Alex:
You ask why a post on a flash in the pan celebrity (even if one favors his long shot candidacy) gets more comments than a serious discussion of citizenry.
Have you ever noticed the magazine stands at supermarkets? All photos of people. Oprah appears on everyone of her covers. There is a fetish most people feel to know everything about people. ideas are too abstract, and most too deep.
At a website I worked, the owners criticized my interviews for being too deep, and substantive. Their readers could not take q’s or a’s over 3 or 4 lines long.
Why do you think Paul or Kucinich speak out? Because they have nothing to lose, while Rudy or Mitt, Hillary, Barack, and Edwards play tight-lips? One of those 5 will likely be Prez. Not you.
On TMV I always argue with people who will natheless vote for the five above rather than ‘waste’ their vote on someone who represents change.
The point? Humans are social animals, and this means that the overwhelming majority follow the herd. Sheeple is the term some here use.
It’s apt. Obsession with self and others, and dutiful obeisance. And, even those few folk online who try to portray themselves as ‘rebels’ do so only online. In reality, when the boss says jump, they say, ‘How high, sir?’
The rare few, like me, that don’t constantly have to paddle ten times as hard just to not get swept away by the current.
So, the next time you want comments on a citizenship post, hire a goddess like Obama girl to tattoo your slogan across her bosom or ass. Then you’ll get hits.
I’m not smart enough to uncover all the subtext to the original question nor trained in all the idiosyncracies of human nature, so I’ll just confine myself to the simplistic possibilities:
1. length–Dr. Estes seems to be capable of crafting doctoral theses as readily as I can pour a cup of coffee. Nonetheless, in the interest of my own time constraints, I can’t take anything on beyond 3 paragraphs.
2. subject–I suspect more people come here for a discussion of current news topics (Ron Paul) than trips into soul-searching endeavours.
3. partisan audience–who wants to bear their soul in a forum where the game is basically political antipathy as opposed to human empathy.
CS-
I spent years in Sunday school, so a religious reference comes naturally.
My disagreement is not so much about scold/inspire, but about overemphasis of one versus a balance of the two. Even motivational speakers, depend on scolding by implication: ti’s all about doing the ‘right’ thing, no matter how you
put it.
I don’t like blanket endorsements or rejections of onw approach or the other, because it’s really about the right message at the right time. IMO, both are needed, and at times a good scolding or’wake up call’ is exactly what we need.
My other point is, though, that the perfect politician may simply not be available. I don’t think it’s a good idea to eat alive those who do show up to give it a try.
CO’s point echoes my own. Blogs are not the place where answers to conflicts between India and Pakistan will be born.
They are places for people to bitch and piss and moan about things that if they did so at work they’d get fired. And then direct the fury they have at their boss, spouse, or fat neighbor who gossips about them at total and anonymous strangers.
Alex: If it makes you feel any better, I was the only commenter on the obituary that ran for Ingmar Bergman.
Don’t take it personally.
Mr. Hammer, I don’t want to discourage your efforts with your website, just want to give a hint on a minor detail that might irritate internet sufers: If the blogs new name is Politics 2.0 (nota bad choice), than the best possible url would be http://www.politics2point0.com, or something similar (for the start, a blogspot subdomain would do, to). hammer2006.blogspot.com leaves the impression that a) this is mainly about you b) you’re living in the past since we already are in 2007 and c) that you’re a lazy and/or incapable blogger who doesn’t care about the misfit or doesn’t know how to change that. I think you would be good adviced to change that.
And just another point on my opinion that convenient tools encourage partizipation and lead to more active citizen: Of course, it’s important that the target group is acting under the presumption that their efforts will at least have a chance to lead to some positive results. It will be extremely difficult, for example, to gather a bunch of volunteers for the presidential campaign of a guy who never held an office before. But it would be no big deal for an articulate political amateur to find enough supporters for his candidacy for the local school board, for instance. You get the picture?
Oh, and Cosmo, certainly you’re right that there are a lot of ‘follow the leader’ type of fish in the pool. But, however, there are a lot of quite rational acting voters, too, and I don’t think it would be a rational decision to support a virtually unknown politician with no experience on the job when there’s a satisfying choice of proven aspirants on the ballot at the very same time. Would you drop a full house just in the hope that your new cards will turn out to be a royal flush? Hmm…
Cosmo’s reference to the Ingmar Bergman post brings up another aspect of commenting.
I didn’t comment on the Bergman post, for ezample, because what I was thinking could not possibly fit into a snappy paragraph or two on a blog, At the same time, why subject the other readers to my personal, lengthy musings on a topic they may not care about? Some topics are just easier to discuss off-line with the known interested.
“I don’t think it’s a good idea to eat alive those who do show up to give it a try.”
It’s a point, Doma. However, maybe pointing out a ‘politicians’ shortcomings is still a better idea as running for a one-in-a-million chance for governor, when with the same effort you would have had a one-in-two chance to get elected to, say, the local school board where you really could have accomplished something for the community. Just a wild guess…
‘But, however, there are a lot of quite rational acting voters, too, and I don’t think it would be a rational decision to support a virtually unknown politician with no experience on the job when there’s a satisfying choice of proven aspirants on the ballot at the very same time.’
I wholly disagree with the two bolded points. We need to go back to the smoke-filled rooms where the parties chose their candidates, and chose good ones. Even backroom losers like Stevenson, Dewey, and Goldwater were far superior to primary winners like Nixon, Carter, Reagan, and Bush. People are dumb. Gore over Bradley? Bush over McCain? Kerry over Clark?
As for proven Pres candidates. The very job is unlike any other, so a far broader range of qualifications come in. While Obama and Edwards are possibilities for me, Hillary, Rudy, Mitt, and the rest are not. All hacks with no vision.
The fact is that someone like Teddy Roosevelt or FDR could not get elected these days.
Oops, I wasn’t aware that some other guy already captured http://www.politics2point0.com ! Sry, Mr. Hammer, I guess you’ll have to check other possible adresses…
Is it bad form for me to be leaving so many comments in my own article?
We all influence each other in this world. I think that is clear from most discussions, including this one. That having been said, for me anyway, it provides meaning to each decision and each action that we decide to make – or not make.
I agree also that things cannot always be too serious. That can give one a headache over time.
“We need to go back to the smoke-filled rooms where the parties chose their candidates, and chose good ones. ”
I have read about those times recently:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tammany_Hall
Boss Tweed, Tamany Hall democrats, yeah, those were the good ole times, fondly remembered because of its great candidates!
Whuahahahahahaha!
Seriously, Cosmo, be careful what you wish for. Chosing candidates in smoke-filled rooms, really…
Hehehehehehe
Couple things captured my eye that crossed with my post.
I have over 400 posts in one Maine politics forum, mostly during the campaign (not a huge amount), and have participated in others, so I enjoy this kind of setting, time permitting.
I had a very strong background before running for Governor, but no political experience, so it was a long shot even before I got hurt (Maine has had two recent Independent Governors, including the nation’s first). Maine has a public financing law that if I hadn’t had my traffic accident would have given me the money to compete very very seriously, so that was my intention going into it.
I enjoy business, and never really thought of myself as a politician per se even when running.
I personally think that a guy like Joe, who sets up a website where we all can come to learn, to talk, even to disagree (hopefully agreeably) is providing a wonderful service. I am an optomist and I do think Web 2.0, interactive and Internet technologies are changing politics. I saw it in my competitors, some of whom seemed at times a bit unnerved by such developments!! (that always encouraged me).
“I personally think that a guy like Joe, who sets up a website where we all can come to learn, to talk, even to disagree (hopefully agreeably) is providing a wonderful service.”
Amen, brother!
And it took him a lot of persistence and hard work to reach the point where TMV is today. Good job, Joe!
Gray: Watergate, Abscam, Iran-Contra, the S&L scandal, the Iraq War. These are just the biggest things brought to us by the wisdom of the people, and their chosen candidates. One can always point to excesses, but again: Stevenson, Dewey, and Goldwater were far superior to primary winners like Nixon, Carter, Reagan, and Bush. And, where have the Roosevelts, Trumans, and Lincolns gone?
Who thinks the four named primary winning Pres’s were good?
OK, Ok, Cosmo, the primaries produced some pretty awful results, too. Still, who wants to decide that the secret insider manipulations were better? Do you have a count on both? It may be ideologically, but I still think transparency is better. If the elected candidate turns out to be a warmongering moron, at least the majority has got what it deserved by showing such a lack of proper judgment.
:-/
Well, you are right in that the old saw, ‘In a democracy the people get the governments they deserve’ is true, but there must be another alternative.
And the guy or gal that comes up with that alternative will be derided and scorned, until he/she is proven right. See Thomas Kuhn….
I think what’s even more pernicious about our primary system is that we have the worst of both worlds. Does anyone not believe that there are still kingmakers in the party leadership, and that backroom deals aren’t already being made with Hillary concerning VP and cabinet positions (and that the same will occur on the GOP side- though it’s not as clear to me this time around who the preferred ‘establishment’ candidate is there).
We are led to believe that the people pick the candidate, yet the choices are forced on us by the realities of the system and finance. And the reason it’s even worse for the people to be part of the process is that now, the party leaders look not only to the candidate that will best meet the needs of their big donors, but to people have a combination of that characteristic along with appeal to the masses (which in our dumbed down culture isn’t usually a good thing).
We will never have a completely transparent system, most likely, but believe me, politicians are more on guard then they have ever been before. For one thing, cell phone cameras are everywhere!!
One danger I see is the co-opting of what could otherwise be citizen enabling and empowering technologies and mediums. The major Presidential candidates have some of the top political Internet and blogging experts in the world working for them. When that is the case, as it already is, it is a huge political advantage.
That’s because mentioning the name Ron Paul is an extremely efficient shorthand for a wide variety of issues most of us have been thinking about for years now: such as what the Republican party should stand for, what the role of government is in people’s lives, what happened to the libertarian conservatives, are we willing to sacrifice our constitutional rights for the promise of better security, is torture an acceptable tactic during wartime, etc.
A column titled “A Citizen’s Responsibility†could mean almost anything depending on the writer. Hugh Hewitt, Michael Moore, Barack Obama or Rudy Giuliani would all have very different ideas on that subject. As an author many of us aren’t familiar with, we first have to read it, digest it, consider the ideas, then come back with our reaction – that takes time.
CS- Yes, I think there are still kingmakers. Seriously, was W the best the R’s had to offer in 2000? But he was anointed. The problem is the backroom Buddhas once tried to push forth people who were competent, at least. Now, it’s all about marketing. Bald men don’t stand a chance since Ike. FDR- a cripple, wd never get elected. TR had polio- he’s a goner. JFK’s probs wd have KO’d him. Reagan was senile, but he cd smile.
The promaties seem a colossal waste of time and money, and the candidates we get are worse than the old system. Again, that system brought us the Roosevelts, Truman and Lincoln, as well as some losers, but we haven’t come near the 4 I just named in the 40 odd yrs of primaries.
“That’s because mentioning the name Ron Paul is an extremely efficient shorthand for a wide variety of issues most of us have been thinking about for years now”
Even being a liberal, I honestly must admit that,afaik, Ron Paul looks like a great republican candidate. I believe that after all that mudslinging and unfair tricks in the last 7 years this would finally result in an election that’s facing on the real issues. Quite an improvement for a change!
Ok, while I was typing that last comment, I had an icecold felling around my neck. Sadly, I ignored it, but now I checked Wiki and found that Paul tried an incredible far shot for presidency in ’88 and only collected 0.47% of the votes. Of course, this puts him fair and square in my drawer containing political loonies (sry, Alex!).
Hmm.
cosmo: exactly, in fact I think W is one of the most prominent examples. We have a system now that puts of surface veneer of democracy (the lowest common denominator variety) while the kingmakers are still anointing which candidate gets picked by making sure the anointed ones get the big bucks, get the endorsements and face time, have name recognition, and nice hair and white teeth.
My problem though is that lately I haven’t seen anyone of note in the lower tier either so I’m not inclined to buck the system. I agree with what some are saying about Ron Paul but then again he strikes me a bit like Ross Perot: someone who says a lot of the things I like to hear and introduces topics which need to be seriously addressed, but whose personality is abrasive at best and slightly unhinged at worst.
I still think the ultimate fault lies with the electorate. We get the leaders we deserve.
Our liar is better than yours.
Now, I don’t think adultery, as example, is a disqualifier, but if one lies and does not fulfill campaign promises, kick him out. Period. The idea that America is irrecoverable after Bush is silly, yet there are some who think this or that candidate shd not win because of too close a tie, or whatever excuse.
If it’s Hillary and Rudy I’ll go third party, again, because that’s the D’s and R’s saying they do not want my vote. They nominate hacks, bye-bye. They will not stop until more folk do like I will.
I agree that Ron Paul is sort of like the R version of that nutty Alaskan D guy. That he’s got buzz shows how desperate the Rs are this year.
I admire your principles on this, really- and I do think that if I felt that there was a better third party candidate I’d go that route too. For me, I don’t see it but we’ve still a year to go so I’ll keep paying attention and see if anyone else surfaces.
“The idea that America is irrecoverable after Bush is silly, yet there are some who think this or that candidate shd not win because of too close a tie, or whatever excuse.”
Now, come on, Cosmo, who ever said this? Sounds like a strawman argument to me. Even here in Germany, where we have a lot of US-haterz (ok, stay cool, ‘only’ about 10% chronical cases), I never heard this. Most pplhere believe that one of the most positive characteristics of the Us is to be able to ‘reinvent itself’. Hope isn’t dead that all will be good if you get rid of Bush and Cheney!
Ok, that’s my last comment for now, I go to bed. Nightynight, y’all!
I think that politics is somewhat cyclical, in that the excesses of one Administration, or a few of them, often serve as the impetus for a drive in the population to move more in the other direction (e.g. Carter vs. Reagan, Regan/Bush vs. Clinton, Clinton vs. current President Bush, President Bush vs. popularity of Democratic ’08 candidates vs. Republicans).
We seem to try sometimes one somewhat extreme in this country and then the other. Not only liberal versus conservative, although that is a significant dimension. Also, “go it alone” and/or heavy handed types vs. more collaborative, consensus types (sometimes usurped as “strong” vs. “weak” or, alternatively, “immoral” vs. “moral” characterizations), focus on domestic vs. foreign policy, etc.
I also believe that our political choices tend to be a reflection generally of us, the populace, i.e. what our needs and wants are and our self-identity. In times of crisis perhaps, we may more want someone us who can lead us (towards solvency and/or away from danger), at other times we may (collectively) want someone who can better line our pockets (decades of greed) or someone who we can relate to (“great communicator”, “someone you’d like to have a beer with versus someone stilted”, etc.). These are all generalizations I realize and only approximations or edges perhaps of the true picture.
I believe further that change eminates from the inside out, in part because our selection of others is based upon, at least in part, what we want from and how we feel about ourselves. That is a major reason why I advocate looking at ourselves first before looking at others. As we continue to mature collectively (a never ending process) our choices, including our political choices, will reflect – hopefully!- that evolving wisdom.
And of course it’s often two steps forward and one step back. That’s ok, as long as it isn’t one step forward and two steps back!!
Alex: it’s called electoral ping pong, but as long as the table is green, it doesn’t matter to the Rs and Ds.
Gray: Well, Germany explains it. You haven’t talked much to the wacko Leftist fringe in the US then. To them, Armageddon awaits!